• @WolfhoundRO
    link
    41 year ago

    We can all agree here that climate change need some immediate solutions, but you debating in bad faith and using so many manipulation tactics in just a few comments not only harms your credibility, but demonstrates that you don’t actually care about climate change, but to just win an argument. Stop. Get some help

    • @BonfireOvDreams
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      Why is it bad faith? What was manipulative? If you’re making the claim, you should explain.

      • @WolfhoundRO
        link
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You have only an uninformed shot at me explaining what essentially you can also find on Google: appeal to morality, hasty generalization (especially on your little funny edit in your second to last comment), false dichotomy, begging the question (the “shame has value in discourse” is your worst example, trying to justify it by a “tu quoque” fallacy). And these are just from a surface level analysis, you don’t want me to do a full one

        • @BonfireOvDreams
          link
          English
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m going to preface that just throwing around fallacies without any context actually doesn’t explain anything, because now I’m left to assume where you’re making the claim.

          appeal to morality

          So you don’t think changing behavior in relation to climate change is morally necessary? You don’t arrive at that conclusion based on available scientific data and projections? You don’t think it’s self-evident?

          Tu quoque

          Are you saying he didn’t judge me as hateful? I don’t think it’s an error btw. I’m not accusing them of doing something wrong on the grounds that they did the same thing as me, they just applied judgement in a way that does less to cause one to take action on climate change. Assuming we hold the same concerns about the climate, and we want action, that’s what makes the judgement objectionable.

          Hasty generalization

          Where

          False dichotomy

          Perhaps I’ll have to look back at my comments because I don’t see this either. I clearly qualified that I’m aware a single individuals choices don’t have enough effect to deter climate change.

          Begging the question

          Where’s the circular reasoning?

          If you’re going to tell people to seek help, nah, you should actually explain.